The Design Argument for the Existence of God

William Paley in his book called Natural Theology offers possibly the most famous analogy for the existence of God through the teleological argument. His analogy is between a watch and the world, his argument was design qua purpose. If we were to come across a watch, we would be able to conclude that it shows all the marks of contrivance and design. We would take the accurate assumption that it was not made through chance, but designed by a watchmaker. In this same way we can look at the world and our universe, that it has been designed, by a great designer – God. Therefore this is a clear outline of the design of the world being proof of God. Vardy wrote in his book (The puzzle of God) about Paley’s argument that we should notice from this analogy that we do not need to know the purpose of the watch or the universe in order to infer a designer, simply that the design implies a designer. This analogy is a definite strength of the argument; it offers clarity and makes its point by relating the world to something more manageable to imagine which we can relate to. Paley is not the only philosopher who has used an analogy to describe their viewpoint. Aquinas and Hume have also used effective analogies clarifying their argument.

The teleological argument is an a posteriori argument. This means that the design argument can only be known to be true or false by reference to experience, to how things actually are in the world. This means that one bases their opinion on what they can see, touch, hear etc…That one can rely on their own senses, this a posteriori argument means that everything around us is evidence for the design argument its tangible . For example  the food chains throughout the animal kingdom. They all show incredible example of purpose for how sustainable it is and that from this order each can live of another. It shows incredible design, and that it is not by chance that these food chains operate; after all you wouldn’t find a cat trying to eat a dog instead of a cat if it got hungry. The cat would follow its instincts designed for it and look for a mouse. It is a great strength for the design argument that its characteristic then, is the logical foundation upon which it is built. This makes it easy and straight forward for people to understand; it follows logical thinking.

Contrary to what might be believed, the design argument does not need to reject the principles of evolution in order to claim a designing God. However theistic supporters of evolution argue that scientific principles alone are not sufficient to explain how evolution led to the perfectly balanced natural order that prevails. This is the anthropic principle, which proposes that the reason and purpose of the cosmos’ existence is the support of human life. “it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known we were coming.” – Freeman Dyson. This principle is a definite strength of the Teleological argument, especially because it runs with science, and explains what science cannot. The anthropic principle is a recent development of the teleological argument. The principle makes the point that if there had been just a minute change in the values of, for instance, the stronger nuclear force of the charge of the electron, then intelligent life, or any form of life at all would have been almost entirely unlikely to develop. This planning that seems so apparent for the existence of intelligent life cannot be accounted for, by physical laws alone since there are innumerable ways that electrons could run. There must be more than physical laws to account for the tremendously high improbability of life. This point is one of A.E.Taylor’s points. F.R.Tennant in his writings ‘Philosophical Theology’ agrees with the anthropic principle stating that the cosmos is constructed for the development of human life and this could not have happened by chance. This agrees with Dysons argument.

Tennant also postulates the aesthetic principle. This is the principle that states that the universe is more that simply orderly; it possesses a natural beauty beyond that which is necessary to live. Beauty is held to have no survival value nor has human appreciation of beauty any apparent real value in helping humans to live together or to be more effectively in the environment within which they find themselves. Naturally there is a survival value in females and males finding each other attractive, cut what is the survival advantage of seeing the beauty in a snowflake. These two thought provoking questions are raised by Vardy. The ability to appreciate beauty, therefore, may be held to be an indication that there is a God. Clearly this is another strength of the teleological argument the anthropic principle and the aesthetic principle both bring up questions that science cannot answer, making the point of God being the designer of the universe. This aesthetic argument shows how beauty goes beyond what is needed for human survival; it gives pleasure and reflects God’s glory.